technodumbo

On Sep 21, 11:28 am, Marky P
wrote:
Ah, you sorted it. Don't need to read my previous post now :-)

Marky P.

Do you ever pick up from Cavendish Court St. Neots. The amplifier came
with the new aerial by the way!!

Haven't done as of yet. BTW, what make is your new aerial? Sounds
interesting that it came with an amplifier.

Marky P.

its called a telecam? wideband . Got it from Argos!!!

"Dave Farrance" wrote in message
...

Anyway, the non techie will read the above and ask: "What is a
'distribution system', and what does 'switch to digital', mean, and for
that matter, what does 'digital' mean here anyway, and what's so special
about the date 2011?" -- and so on. Some of those will be explained
further on in the leaflet, but mentally connecting them together will be
a hard job if all the terms are unfamiliar.

It's difficult, because if I define every term the thing gets bogged down.


Analogue terrestrial television

This is the fancy name for the ordinary TV channels, BBC-1, BBC-2, ITV-1,
and Channel 4. This is the television you have always had and have now.
Analogue TV will end in 2011.

As you probably know, analogue television reception is very poor in the
immediate area. The reason is that xxxxxxxxxxx House is on very low
ground,
with a substantial hillside between it and the transmitter at xxxxxxxx.
The
...

As Mark Carver said, maybe use simpler words here.
I'm not worried about using an extended vocabulary because the readers are
mostly retired professionals.

The fewer techie
terms that you can get away with, the better. It's very difficult to
suggest what, though. "Old TV broadcasts" for "analogue" maybe?
I did define 'analogue'.

"Broadcasting mast" for "transmitter"?
Yes, I think 'transmitter' is a mistake.



(b) There is a better solution available to you now: the use of satellite.

So if you are still dissatisfied with the quality of your TV picture after
we have connected your TV set to the new distribution system the only
answer
is for you to use satellite.

"Use of satellite" is another forward reference that isn't clearly
marked as such,
This is a very good point.

which could be worded another way maybe? I see that
you're trying to cover all the possibilities at each point, and be
reassuring, but maybe it could be: If you are still dissatisfied with
the quality of your TV picture after we have done the work, then there
are other ways to get TV broadcasts that I have written about below".
Yes, that's a good idea.

There is a problem with digital terrestrial TV in xxxxxxxx. Because of the
shortage of channels during the present period of dual analogue/digital
transmissions it is not possible to transmit the digital channels from
...

You use the word constructions "digital", "digital terrestrial
television", "digital transmissions", and "digital channels" for the
same broadcasting system. They've got to figure out that the buzzword
"digital" connects the concepts together, but "terrestrial" does not.
I'd stick with "Freeview".
Yes. I think it's reasonable to ignore TopUp.


Maybe that woman actually will come up with some helpful suggestions.
Tell us if she does. Writing the leaflet might well be the hardest
design challenge of the job.
Yes. This leaflet was a bad one because of the horrendous reception
difficulties. The amazing thing is that the building, which is two years
old, has survived with only a loft aerial! The reception they've had had
been truly dreadful. Signal levels from this aerial are -23 to -28dBmV.

Bill




--
Dave Farrance

"Roderick Stewart" wrote in message
.. .
Sometimes it can be helpful to do what the newspapers do, and offer the
same
information several times in a kind of fractal buildup of increasing
amounts
of detail, so the reader can stop where they want and have the whole
story,
knowing there's more if they need it.

They nearly all do it in some form or other. First there's a big headline
which gives the message in as few single syllable words as possible, then
a
sub-heading in bold type, usually just one sentence, then a whole
paragraph
repeating the same thing again, then the rest of the column starts at the
beginning again and tells the whole story. You can get the gist of it
simply
by skimming the headlines and deciding which bits will be worth a bit more
of your time after the kettle's boiled.

Or consider the Rupert the Bear books, and notice that every page gives
the
same information four times in four different ways, so children of
different
ages can share the same book. I've always thought that a stroke of genius.
If you want to give information that can be assimilated by a wide range of
people, give it several times in slightly different ways, then each person
will understand some part of it, but everybody will have the impression
that
they have understood it all.

This is a really good idea. I'll have to think how I could do that.

By the way, I wonder how many firms go this amount of trouble to communicate
with end users.

Bill

snip
Yes. This leaflet was a bad one because of the horrendous reception
difficulties. The amazing thing is that the building, which is two years
old, has survived with only a loft aerial! The reception they've had had
been truly dreadful. Signal levels from this aerial are -23 to -28dBmV.

Bill






Maybe you should've said 'We are fiddling with your telly pictures.
They should be better when we are finished.

Marky P.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:01:34 -0700, wrote:

On Sep 21, 11:28 am, Marky P
wrote:
Ah, you sorted it. Don't need to read my previous post now :-)

Marky P.

Do you ever pick up from Cavendish Court St. Neots. The amplifier came
with the new aerial by the way!!

Haven't done as of yet. BTW, what make is your new aerial? Sounds
interesting that it came with an amplifier.

Marky P.

its called a telecam? wideband . Got it from Argos!!!

Most of the Telecam aerials in Argos are indoor 'set top' aerials,
apart from one, which is £79.99. Please tell me you didn't pay £79.99
for an aerial! I know it works, but £79.99?

Marky P.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:01:50 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

In article , Marky P
scribeth thus
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:43:42 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

Anyhow, thankyou once again, I am just off up into the
loft to try this new aerial out. To all others reading this ....Do not
worry, If it works, I need not come here to tell you. Deal??? Regards
Zoe, 32 year old female (obviously) English teacher. Cambridgeshire.

Missed that bit .. so where in Cambridgeshire is this Loft aerial that
isn't delivering?..

Your slow, tony. Her postcode is the same as mine (PE19) so St. Neots
area is presumed. You really don't need an outdoor aerial round here,
unless your loft is lead-lined like mine.

Bugger, it's later than I thought! I've gotta get off to work :-(

Marky P.

Bloody hell thats attenuator country!....

Well, my analogue signal is close to 80dBuV on the strongest stations
using a Blake DMX05W half way up my outside wall. The same aerial in
the loft is nearly unusable, especially on DTT.

Also, i've seen some Log Periodics in cambridge, so signal must be
pretty good there too.

Marky P.

In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:
I am sadly used to many physical science undergrads who have real problems
with writing clearly. The root of the problem doesn't seem to me to be a
lack of formal knowledge of 'English Language' as required for an exam.
More a failure to check what they've just written and consider what a
reader might make of it. In effect, a symptom of a lack of thought, and not
having any awareness of the reader.

I was taught English by several teachers at different schools, and one thing
I remember absolutely *all* of them including in their fundamental advice to
us (after "write about what you know" of course) was AFTER YOU HAVE WRITTEN
SOMETHING, READ WHAT YOU HAVE JUST WRITTEN. The importance of it can't be
overstated. For decades afterwards I remembered it every time I checked a
recording by playing it back. Some things really are fundamental.

Rod.

In article , Bill Wright wrote:
[snip my own stuff. see previous post if interested]
This is a really good idea. I'll have to think how I could do that.

By the way, I wonder how many firms go this amount of trouble to communicate*
with end users.

Practically none, judging by the abysmal quality of most documentation for
anything technical. It's no wonder most people think technology is difficult to
understand. It isn't really if properly explained, but badly written or badly
translated instructions that were assigned to some untrained and probably
underpaid minion as an afterthought, and then not properly checked afterwards,
most definitely are.

I think the usual order of magnitude for the budgets must be that after the
amount that absolutely has to be spent on manufacturing the gubbins itself,
marketing and advertising gets the most, and telling users how it works gets
least of all.

Rod.

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 22:00:04 +0100, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:
I am sadly used to many physical science undergrads who have real problems
with writing clearly. The root of the problem doesn't seem to me to be a
lack of formal knowledge of 'English Language' as required for an exam.
More a failure to check what they've just written and consider what a
reader might make of it. In effect, a symptom of a lack of thought, and not
having any awareness of the reader.

I was taught English by several teachers at different schools, and one thing
I remember absolutely *all* of them including in their fundamental advice to
us (after "write about what you know" of course) was AFTER YOU HAVE WRITTEN
SOMETHING, READ WHAT YOU HAVE JUST WRITTEN. The importance of it can't be
overstated. For decades afterwards I remembered it every time I checked a
recording by playing it back. Some things really are fundamental.

Rod.

All I remember in English classes was watching 'Billy Liar'. Lazy
bugger, our English teacher, we always watched films. Though I do
remember writing a rather good poem about my cat, that got read out in
front of all the class :-)

Marky P.

On Sep 21, 6:54 pm, Marky P wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:01:34 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 21, 11:28 am, Marky P
wrote:
Ah, you sorted it. Don't need to read my previous post now :-)

Marky P.

Do you ever pick up from Cavendish Court St. Neots. The amplifier came
with the new aerial by the way!!

Haven't done as of yet. BTW, what make is your new aerial? Sounds
interesting that it came with an amplifier.

Marky P.

its called a telecam? wideband . Got it from Argos!!!

Most of the Telecam aerials in Argos are indoor 'set top' aerials,
apart from one, which is £79.99. Please tell me you didn't pay £79.99
for an aerial! I know it works, but £79.99?

Marky P.

I hate to say it,but yeah i did get that one. My old one had been
repaired by previous homeowner and badly at that,so I though what the
hell.